Missing:
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXLV Number 3 Fall 2012: 321-344
Uncomfortable Ethical Decisions: The Role of Negative Emotions and Emotional Intelligence in Ethical Decision-Making Sukumarakurup Krishnakumar Assistant Professor of Management
North Dakota State University
Doug Rymph Assistant Professor of Management Practice
North Dakota State University
Understanding ethical decision-making and what makes for decisions that are more or less ethical has been a perplexing problem for eons. Even back in biblical times, the wise King Solomon pondered how he might "do justice." Doing justice, or the right thing, is no less salient in the current millennium. Consider a New York Times (5-28-2009, David Brooks) discussion on Supreme Court justices and the ethical decisions they must make. A central concern of this opinion piece is how these justices might make more or less ethical decisions. Curiously enough, the Times thought that a justice's emotions more often than not played a pivotal role in those ethical decisions. The Times claimed that having those emotions was inevitable. The important thing here, at least according to the Times, was not the presence of those emotions, but the way in which the justices intei-preted and dealt with those emotions. When a justice appropriately deals with their emotions, he/she should be able to make better decisions. This issue dealing with justices, emotions, and ethical decisions parallels the central theme of this paper - and that theme is emotions are pei-vasive in ethical decision-making and how an individual works through those emotions strongly affects - for better or worse - their ethical decisions. The more skilled a person is in dealing with his/her emotions, the more likely that person is to make more ethical decisions. The above-mentioned historical, anecdotal, and practitioner-based perspectives are further supported by both theoretical and empirical research in ethical decisionmaking (EDM). Researchers have long acknowledged the importance of several factors that infiuence EDM. These factors include moral intensity Qones, 1991), stages of JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 3 Fall 2012 (321)
322
UNCOMFORTABLE ETHICAL DECISIONS
individual development (Kohlberg, 1969), and the stage of decision-making (Rest, 1986). Even so, there still appears to be a significant void related to understanding the role of emotions. Many researchers have acknowledged this gap (Gaudine and Thorne, 2001; Haidt, 2001; Rogerson et al., 2011; Treviño et al., 2006). This is not to say that there is no research related to emotions. Most of the research related to emotions so far has looked at moral emotions (e.g., guilt, shame). As demonstrated by the previous situation, making ethical decisions, decisions that involve what is morally right or wrong, can be a challenge and a source of gi eat discomfort, especially when emotional forces prompt individuals to act less ethically (Gentile, 2010). Although Connelly et al. (2004) have studied the effects of trait emotions on EDM, no other study has looked at the effects of state emotion on EDM. This study aims to fill that void by examining the specific emotions of sadness and anger. In filling this gap, this paper addresses Gaudine and Thome's (2001) call for more scrutiny of the role of emotions in EDM and Trevino et al.'s (2006) call for closer examination of contextual and affective factors in EDM. Specifically, this study suggests two additional factors that could have a very strong influence on EDM, which are: (1) strong, negative emotions such as sadness and anger; and (2) people's ability to handle those emotions, otherwise more commonly known in the academic community as Emotional Intelligence (EI). In this paper, the role of two discrete negative emotions, sadness and anger, in the ethical decision-making (EDM) process is explained and synthesized. Discrete emotions are basic in nature and unique from each other and have evolutionary purposes (Frijda, 1988; Izard, 2009). The intei-vening and significant role of emotional intelligence in EDM is also explained. Then, data is presented that support hypotheses. THE PROCESS OF ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
Before the role of negative emotions in EDM is synthesized, an examination of research that has already been done is helpful. Traditionally, most research and practice has focused on the cognitive aspects of EDM. Rest (1986) suggests that individuals facing an ethical dilemma go through a four-step process of cognition and behavior. In the first step of moral awareness, the individual becomes aware of the ethical dilemma. Though this seems like a simple first step, it is important. Histoiy shows that there are many examples in which an individual has claimed that s/he was not aware of the unethical activities or decisions (e.g., Enron executive Kenneth Lay's assertion; Rawe, 2004). Though in many cases, individuals involved in such situations give excuses (e.g., others told me to do so or / trusted others' advice), for all practical
purposes, their decisions are still considered to be unethical (Anand et al., 2005). The second step in Rest's (1986) four-step process is to make a judgment about the ethical dilemma. Individuals make judgments based on two types of factors: internal factors (e.g., personal beliefs and values) and external factors (e.g., rewards, social reputation). The third step in Rest's (1986) four-step process is to form an intention to make a decision. This stage relates to the intensity of the commitment to make a morally appropriate decision. Here the individual also stresses the importance of moral values (Rest et al., 1999). This urge to make an ethical decision could be translated into actual JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXTV Number 3 Fall 2012
KRISHNAKUMAR AND RYMPH
323
decisions, which is step 4 in Rest's (1986) framework, through two different pathways (Reynolds, 2006). First, as discussed above, the EDM process can be deliberate and systematic. Second, EDM could be done through a refiexive, intuitive, and often automatic process. Haidt (2001) has theorized that individuals may not always be aware of a step-by-step process of EDM. In the social intuitionist perspective proposed by Haidt (2001), moral decisions are often made through effordess and intuitive processes with the reasoning coming after the decision has been made. Here, the individual rationalizes why he or she made that decision. Haidt's (2001) theory suggests that the actual EDM (not the reasoning after the decision) is purely intuitive. While Rest's (1986) sequential steps suggest a parsimonious approach to understanding EDM, there are several contingencies which could play a part in this process. One of the more investigated contingencies relates to the logical and cognitive aspect of the issue itself, and was termed moral intensity by Jones (1991). One of the less investigated contingencies is the affective/interpersonal contingency. The next paragraph first reviews research on different contingencies, and then the role of affective/interpersonal contingencies is derived and discussed. CONTINGENCIES OF ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
Academic research has identified multiple variables that affect EDM. For example, Jones (1991) suggested that ethical decision-makers, as they go through the sequential steps in EDM, think about multiple factors relating to the ethical issue itself He suggested six factors that could collectively intensify the ethical issue and make it more salient. While describing those six factors is outside the purview of this paper, the propositions and hypotheses in this paper relate to similar contingencies in the emotional realm. During the ethical decision-making process, several contingencies can arise that may lead to emotion elicitation. For example, recent studies have shown that emotions can impact the formation of ethical judgments and decisions. Higher justifiability and violation of community standards, for example, have been shown to increase intentions of unethical behavior (Schweitzer and Gibson, 2008). Similarly, Horberg et al (2011) suggest the role of different emotional contingencies on moral judgment. They suggest emotions affect moral judgment through the formation of unique socio moral concerns. For example, anger relates to contingencies such as fairness and injustice. Gentile (2010, 2011) has also studied organizational and issue-based factors that may affect an employee's choices to act in a more or less ethical fashion. Unlike Jones (1991), who takes a more theoretical approach, she takes a more practitioner based approach in which she identifies organizational constraints, which might dissuade employees from "voicing their values" or speaking up against unethical practices. Her approach focuses more on the implementation of ethical solutions as opposed to the traditional focus on developing morality itself Importantly, Gentile (2010) suggests that the more challenging part will be to get employees to communicate, clarify, and customize each ethical decision according to the situation, without compromising their own morality. Integrating early research by Jones (1991) and more recent studies by Gentile (2010), it is quite apparent that the ethical issue or dilemma cannot be seen in JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXTV Number 3 Fall 2012
324
UNCOMFORTABLE ETHICAL DECISIONS
isolation due to both interpersonal and organizational factors. What makes these factors as identified by both Jones (1991) and Gentile (2010) particularly pertinent to this discussion of EDM is that these factors may frequendy lead to emotional consequences of substantial intensity. This emotional intensity, or more specifically, the lack of research on how negative emotions affect EDM, is deplored by Gaudine and Thome (2001) as a significant void in the EDM literature. It is to this void that this study is directed. It is proposed that such factors as where and how emotions are elicited and how these emotions are managed would play a major role in the extent to which a decision-maker chooses to be more or less ethical. EMOTIONS AND ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
Emotions, defined as intense feelings directed at someone or something, are present in almost all situations and contexts (Frijda, 1993). Emotions vary in valence (positive vs. negative) and intensity (active vs. passive; Barrett and Russell, 1998). Academics and practitioners have long known that emotions impact rational thought processes. Many philosophical and empirical accounts even go so far as to warn decision-makers about the perils of making decisions when one is emotionally aroused (e.g., counting-to-ten exercise prior to responding to an angry e-mail or postponing major financial decisions after a tragic loss). More recently, managerial scientists have become aware of the value of emotional information while making rational decisions (e.g., the idea of "hot cognitions;" Greenberg and Safran, 1984). This paper is more specifically concerned about the role of emotions in EDM. As argued by Betan and Stanton (1999), ethical dilemmas occur in interpersonal contexts (e.g., reporting a colleague or friend for an unethical activity), and these interpersonal contexts are often accompanied by high levels of emotion (e.g., anxiety and sadness in losing a good colleague or friend). Previous research suggests that substantial events at the workplace elicit emotions (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996). More research has found that certain kinds of events (e.g., unfair practices) result in the elicitation of strong negative emotions (De Cremer and Van Hiel, 2010; Mikula et al, 1998). This paper proposes that emotions, especially those negative emotions elicited by moral intensity, will influence EDM. Studies investigating the role of emotions in general decision-making contexts have provided several clues that could better facilitate the understanding of EDM. Previous research shows that emotions influence decision-making in at least three different ways. First, in the judgment stage of the Rest (1986) model, emotions could act by providing information that could help the decision-maker to form more (or less) accurate judgments of the situation (Ambady and Gray, 2002; Forgas and Locke, 2005). Bower (1981) suggests that individuals tend to have "affect-congruent" memories that could be used in future decisions. Individuals in a positive affective state tend to remember the positive things easily, whereas individuals in a negative affective state may recall more negative events and memories. These tendencies could result in an overall bias in future judgments that may not be related to those retrieved affective experiences. The affective past could, therefore, influence fliture ethical decisions. Second, different emotions trigger different intentions (third step of the Rest (1986) model) through the adoption of different cognitive processing styles (Affect Infijsion Model; Forgas, 2002). JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 3 Fall 2012
KRISHNAKUMAR AND R Y M P H
325
In AIM, Forgas (2002) suggests that affect or emotion enters into the rational cognitive processing infiuencing how individuals reason and make decisions. He finds that positive emotions trigger a more casual and heuristic processing style, whereas negative emotions trigger a more substantive and detailed processing style. Third, emotional arousal has been demonstrated in MRI studies to interfere with the ability to process information (e.g., Lang et al, 1998). Each of three types of infiuences could alter the outcome of decisions in different ways. Ethical dilemmas often involve other individuals, sometimes even significant others (e.g., close friends, coworkers, etc.). Emotions can impact EDM when others are involved in a situation because the presence of others could infiuence social norms or social templates. As Haidt (2001) notes, social templates of acceptable behaviors could trigger strong reactions and subsequendy lead to quick and intuitive decision-making in individuals. This possibility has been explored by several researchers who point out that the social consensus is being formed by individuals in the decision-maker's environment (Haidt, 2001; Reynolds, 2006). Alternatively, other individuals could interfere with or obstruct the EDM process in some situations through their social and interpersonal relationships with the decision-maker. That is, the presence of social norms and social relationships may not always make the EDM process easier. For example, social relationships could act against or interfere with a socially accepted decision, making the EDM process particularly confusing or non-linear. The uniqueness of a moral/ethical dilemma and its associated emotions are, therefore, likely to draw the decision-maker in different directions—more ethical versus less ethical—and cause him/her to waver, even more than usual. This emotional influence is especially strong in the case of negatively valenced emotions because those often have different effects, motivations, and infiuences on the decision-maker. These effects are partly due to different appraisals or evaluations formed as a result of or during the elicitation of different discrete emotions (Lerner and Keltner, 2001). In one of the very few studies that have described the influence of emotions on EDM, Gaudine and Thome (2001) have called on researchers to investigate the effects of negative emotions further before theorizing their effects on EDM. Because there are several different discrete and negatively valenced emotions and a complete study of all those emotions could be well beyond the space and time constraints of this paper, two emotions that are known to have strong effects on the decision-maker are selected: sadness and anger (Bodenhausen et al, 1994). Though these two emotions are classified broadly as negatively valenced, appraisal theories have clearly distinguished the antecedents and causes of these two emotions. In particular, research suggests that sadness and anger can uniquely affect social perception and judgments (Bodenhausen et al, 1994). Generally, sadness and anger are associated with feelings of discomfort, and those feelings of discomfort are feelings that the more rationally minded will seek to avoid. It is during this avoidance that one's perceptions and judgments are affected; one might very well be more motivated to avoid the discomfort than to come up with more accurate perceptions and judgments.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 3 Fall 2012
326
UNCOMFORTABLE ETHICAL DECISIONS THE ROLES OF SADNESS AND ANGER
Decision-makers, seeking to minimize their feelings of discomfort, may choose decisions that make them less likely to incur that discomfort. For example, Tversky and Kahneman (1981) found that subjects became much more motivated to avoid potential costs/losses when dilemmas were framed in such a way as to make potential costs/losses more salient. Specifically their subjects found the discomfort associated with loss to be greater than the comfort associated with gain and acted to minimize their chances of incurring losses. Similarly, Folger and Skarlicki (1998) found that managers were likely to make choices that were less just when that choice allowed them to minimize their feelings of discomfort. Specifically, their study measured the "distancing" of the subjects conducting the lay-offs from the participants who were laid off. Each subject was asked to estimate the minimum amount of time in minutes that was necessary for informing the target person of the layoff decision. The less the amount of time the subject thought appropriate, the gieater the distancing was deemed by Folger and Skarlicki (1998). Results showed that those with the highest level of emotional discomfort were also those who distanced themselves the most from those laid off. Thus, both Tversky and Kahneman's (1981) subjects, as well as Folger and Skarlicki's (1998) subjects, seemed to make decisions that minimized their incurred feelings of discomfort. And just as Tversky and Kahneman's (1981) as well as Folger and Skarlicki's (1998) subjects sought to minimize their feelings of discomfort, it is expected those facing ethical dilemmas to act to minimize their feelings of discomfort. Both less ethical and more ethical choices can incur feelings of discomfort. One of the frequently studied factors that cause discomfort is guilt. Previous studies have shown that anticipated guilt may cause decision makers to act more ethically. For example, Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2006) showed that increasing anticipated guilt by increasing the salience of interpersonal consequences could lead consumers to make more ethical decisions. Similarly, Cohen (2010) showed that guilt proneness also inhibited the use of unethical tactics in a bargaining situation. Most previous studies, as mentioned, assume that unethical behaviors typically cause anguish for the decisionmaker, thus dissuading him/her from unethical decisions (Treviño et al., 2006; Jones, 1991). For example, if a person understands that engaging in an unethical act may result in the loss of a friendship, that person might be deterred from the act to avoid the cost of that unethical decision. Thus, studies relating to feelings of discomfort causing individuals to make more ethical decisions have been done earlier. However, less studied are situations (like the ones used in this study) in which greater comfort is associated with less ethical decisions. For example, one might lose a friend if one reports that friend for unethical behavior. Because reporting the behavior will result in higher negative emotions (as explained above), the individual will be motivated to avoid the discomfort by choosing the less ethical behavior of failing to file a report. Therefore, the individual is more likely to choose the less ethical behavior to avoid the negative emotions that could result if they were to make a more ethical choice (Meilers, 2000). Thus decision-makers can be expected to make less ethical decisions to insure a greater level of emotional comfort.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERLy;. ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 3 Fall 2012
KRISHNAKUMAR AND R Y M P H Hypothesis la: Hypotheses Ib: ,„.
.
327
Increased levels of sadness luill be associated with less ethical decisions. Increased levels of anger will be associated xuith less ethical decisions.
Although emotions and discomfort do substantially impact ethical judgments, individuals are not mere conduits for thoughts and emotions. Previous research indicates that individual differences, such as innate characteristics and abilities, also affect behavior. The next section explains the role of emotional intelligence. A theoretical model describing the roles of both emotions and emotional intelligence is given in Figure 1. Figure 1 Schematic Representation of the Moderating Effect of Emotional Intelligence on the Relationship between Negative Emotions and Ethical Decision Making. Negative Emotions
Moral awareness
Emotional Intelligence >f t
Moral J Iidgment
t
Moral Intentions
^
Negative Emotions
Negative Emotions
é
Emotional Intelligence f
Moral Decision
t
Negative Emotions
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIV Number 3 Fall 2012
328
UNCOMFORTABLE ETHICAL DECISIONS THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Historically, Emotional Intelligence (EI) was derived from the ability to deal with social interactions (social intelligence, Thorndike, 1920). Emotional Intelligence has been defined by Salovey and Mayer (1989) as having four "branches" or individual abilities that enable an individual to perceive, thoughtfully use, understand, and manage emotions to achieve a productive end. These four branches are: (1) the ability to perceive emotions; (2) die ability to thoughtfully use emotions; (3) the ability to understand emotions, and; (4) the ability to manage emotions. Each of these four branches is arranged in a hierarchy from the most basic (branch 1) to the most advanced (branch 4) (Mayer et al, 2008; Joseph and Newman, 2010). Because EDM is closely associated with the societal norms and expectations (Kohlberg, 1969), it is theoretically logical to assume that EI, especially the management ability (branch 4), plays a major role in EDM. When emotions are elicited in any ethical dilemma, they are processed by abilides included under EI. Mayer and Salovey (1997) explain that EI occupies a unique vantage point between ladonal cognitions and "hot" cognitions. Previous research has also suggested that individuals may take shortcuts and other pathways to make ethical decisions (Haidt, 2001). Such ethical decisions involve the use of cognitions and emotions in varying amounts. For example, when faced with a situation eliciting intense anger, a person could make an unethical decision prompted by that anger, rather than going through a rational, multi-step process. Specifically, the management branch of EI modifies the emotions in a manner that will be helpful to achieve productive outcomes. High-EI individuals, therefore, could reduce the effects of sadness and anger on their decision-making. Sadness and anger are not only removed as hindrances, but also used to enhance ethical decisions. Therefore, El-management could result in better ethical decisions especially when more negadve emotions accompany ethical decisions. On the contrary, the role of EI is diminished when individuals do not have these negative emotions to deal with. Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between EI and EDM will be moderated by anger, such that the relationship between EI and ethical decisions will be stronger in the high-anger condition. Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between EI and EDM will be moderated by sadness, such that the relationship betiueen EI and ethical decisions will be stronger in the high-sadness condition.
SUMMARY OF STUDIES The next section describes two studies that test the hypotheses. The first study uses two EDM scenarios to illustrate the effects of feelings of discomfort and negative emotions (sadness and anger). The scenarios developed in study 1 are then used in study 2 to investigate the effects of El-Management.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXTV Number 3 FaU 2012
KRISHNAKUMAR AND R Y M P H
329
STUDY 1 Sample Business majors and minors (n = 158) at a midwestern university were invited to participate in this study. All were juniors and seniors enrolled in management classes. The average participant age was 22.52 years, and 47% were females. Students received extra credit in a class for their participation. Procedure The study involved two versions of a paper/pencil survey, each one depicting two EDM situations. Anger (high or low) and sadness (high or low) were manipulated. The surveys were distributed randomly in each of the study sessions to minimize systematic contextual (e.g., time of the day) and methodological (e.g., study explanation) effects. Measures Experimental Manipulation. One version of the sui-veys contained two original scenarios (described below) developed by Sims (1999) and several measures of discrete emotions. The second version contained modified scenarios designed to elicit more negative emotions than the first version. Ethical Decision-making. Ethical decision-making was measured using the responses to the two scenarios (Sims, 1999). Both scenarios describe events at workplaces. The first scenario (Appendix A, Scenario 1: Policies) concerns the dilemma caused when an employee must decide to report or ignore an unethical activity in the workplace. The respondent has to choose one of the available alternatives from a list of five. All the choices were randomly arranged in the actual study to prevent guessing. Each response was formatted as least ethical (i.e., say nothing) to most ethical (i.e., make sure that the violation was corrected, no matter how far I would have to go). The ethicality of each of these responses has been previously calibrated by using expert raters (see Sims, 1999). Scenario 2 (Appendix A, Scenario 2: Year-end report) depicts another workplace situation in which an employee has to respond to a co-worker's poor performance and contribution to a year-end report that the two are jointly preparing. Similar to Scenario 1, the choices are arranged randomly in the actual study (arranged in the order of increasing ethicality in the Appendix A). The two scenarios were modified to elicit more intense feelings of discomfort and negative emotions. The first scenario was modified to elicit more sadness and the second scenario was designed to elicit more anger. These increased feelings of discomfort and negative emotions were aligned with more ethical choices. Scenario 1 was modified by adding the following sentence (italicized in Appendix B): "She/he is also a very clo.se friend ofyours. You are also aware that he/she is the sole income provider for his/her household. Hence, this could lead to emotional consequences. "
JOURNAL OE MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXTV Number 3 Eall 2012
330
UNCOMFORTABLE ETHICAL DECISIONS
This addition increases the potential for feelings of discomfort and negative emotions, especially sadness if the respondent chooses the more ethical options. Likewise, the second scenario also was modified by adding the following: "This year the preparation of the report was especially hard, because in addition to writing the report, you also had to coach the new employee. Because of the demanding nature of this project, you've also had to sacrifice a lot in your personal life (e.g. your parents' anniversary, your kids' soccer games, etc.). You really feel angry about this situation. "
Manipulation Check. The manipulations of sadness and anger were evaluated by using eight items (Interest, Happiness, Surprise, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, Eear, and Shame),
following the discrete emotion framework suggested by Izard (discrete emotions; 2009) and Tangney et al (moral emotions; 2007). After the scenarios, individuals were presented with the sentence: Please indicate the amount of emotions you felt as you made your decision by circling the appropriate response below.
These items were used after each of the two scenarios. The modification of Scenario 1 was expected to yield more sadness, and the modification of Scenario 2 was expected to yield more anger overall. Results Manipulation Check. To test the effectiveness of the sadness and anger manipulations, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with the modification (dummy coded) as the independent variable and sadness 1 (sadness from Scenario 1), anger 1, sadness 2, anger 2, EDM 1 (ethical-decision making score from Scenario 1), and EDM 2 (Scenario 2) as dependent variables (Table 1). As expected, the modified Scenarios 1 and 2 yielded more sadness (F,,d,,^,,,= 5.7, p—* O
d
o
CO
o o
O
un CO Ö d
o
* * to
to
[—
d
d
*
* *
o to d *
*
O
1^
00
CM CM
d
o
O
CM'
CM CM
CM CM
00
d
d
d
to
d
CL 3 O
» 00
(0.
00 ^^
^^
CO 00
o
9
ir CM
* CM
00
o
o
CM
o
d
*
t^
to ^^ tÇ!
d
to
CM 00
o
o d
d
d
# CO
o
o
CO 00
ce
o
•
o
^
O
in
r^
o
o
CO
CO
'-
